Roberts v. State

• Decision Date: 28 July 1890
• Citation: 7 So. 861,26 Fla. 360
• Parties: ROBERTS v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

7 So. 861

26 Fla. 360

ROBERTS v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

July 28, 1890

Error to circuit court, Columbia county; JOHN F. WHITE, Judge.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. When the words used in an indictment are equivalent to the words of the statute, and the indictment is sufficient to put the defendant upon full notice of the offense with which he is charged, the judgment will not be arrested upon the ground that the indictment was so vague and indefinite that the defendant was embarrassed and misled in his defense.

2. A person who wishes to sell spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors in a county where no election has been held, to determine whether or not such liquors shall be sold, must present his petition, signed by a majority of the registered voters of the election district in which he desires to sell, to the board of county commissioners, obtain a permit to sell, and present the permit, the amount of money required by law for the license, and the license fee to the collector of revenue for the county; and if the collector of revenue then refuse to grant the license, the applicant has his remedy against the officer to compel him to grant the license. But a sale without the license is a violation of the law, and one who sells without the license cannot shield himself upon the ground that he had presented the money for the license, or that he did not intend to violate the law.

COUNSEL B. B. Blackwell, for plaintiff in error.

William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

OPINION

MITCHELL J.

The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted upon a charge of engaging in and managing the business of a dealer in spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors without a license on the 8th day of March, 1890. Defendant moved in arrest of judgment, and for new trial, which motions were overruled and defendant sentenced to pay a fine of $600, and costs of the case, and the case now comes before this court upon writ of error.

There are but two assignments of error in the case (1) The court erred in overruling motion in arrest of judgment. (2) The court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

The grounds of the motion to arrest the judgment are: (1) Because said indictment does not charge a crime under the laws of the state of Florida; (2) because said indictment is so vague indefinite, and uncertain that the defendant was embarrassed and misled in his defense; (3) because the indictment fails to allege the facts and circumstances of the offense charged and only states a conclusion of law.

As to the first ground: The defendant was convicted under chapter 3681, Laws Fla., (Act of June 13, 1887,) the ninth section of which act provides that 'dealers in spirituous, vinous and malt liquors shall pay a license tax of four hundred dollars ($400) in each county for each place of business, * * * but neither spirituous, vinous, nor malt liquors shall be permitted to be sold unless said license tax is first paid, and a license therefor first taken out. * * *' And the tenth section of the act provides that 'any person or persons that shall carry on or conduct any business or profession for which a license is required, without first obtaining such license, shall, except in such cases as are otherwise provided for in this act, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than double the amount required for such license.' The charge in the case at bar is that the defendant 'did, on,' etc., 'then and there engage in and manage the business of a dealer in spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors without first paying a license tax to the state of Florida, and without first having taken out a license therefor, and for which business a license is required by the law. * * *' The language used in the...